Federalist Deliberative Democracy in Nigeria: Challenges and Prospects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Simply defined as a ‘conception of democratic politics in which decisions and policies are justified in a process of discussion among free and equal citizens or their accountable representatives’ (Gutman and Thompson, 2000, p. 161), deliberative democracy is now widely considered to be one of the leading models of democracy (Held, 2006). However, while engaging in various forms of deliberative democracy has increased in some countries since the 1990s, contributions to, and even the feasibility of, deliberative democracy in divided (multicultural) societies have as yet been studied and contested very little (Dryzek, 2005; O’Flynn 2006), especially in ethnically and religiously divided countries like Nigeria. To this end, the present chapter seeks to make a modest contribution to the literature on deliberative democracy in divided societies with specific reference to Nigeria, the world’s most populous black country. It argues that Nigeria’s ethnic and religious diversity and its federal political system demand a decentralized deliberative democratic model where state actors, institutions and citizens can interact effectively. The potential challenges facing deliberative democracy in Nigeria, not to mention the prospects for it and the very relevance of federalist deliberative democracy to the country, are analyzed within the context of Nigeria’s federal democratic framework. The chapter maintains that although Nigeria faces a myriad of challenges with respect to the possibility of engaging deliberative democracy, prospects abound for formulating various deliberative processes and incorporating them into its polity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".